5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
6.  On 13 December 2001 the applicant newspaper published an article based on a story by Mrs Z. Samson about her daughter (the second applicant). The article described the second applicant's problems with her neighbour, G.C., former Minister of Construction.
7.  G.C. initiated court proceedings claiming damages for defamation. He did not specify which parts of the article he found to be defamatory. Before the first-instance court adopted its judgment, the applicant newspaper published an apology to G.C. at the request of the second applicant and G.C.
8.  On 17 October 2002 the Buiucani District Court partly accepted G.C.'s claim due to the publication of the apology and ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction on the same page as the original article and to pay damages and court fees in the total amount of 1,404 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 105 euros (EUR).
9.  The court found that the following “information” from the article did not “coincide with the truth”:
“a former State official builds himself castles”, “the neighbours say that he rents them to earn a fortune”, “the ex-Minister of Construction G.C. decided to get rich off the back of the misery of others”, “through various methods he forced the elderly who lived in the same neighbourhood as [the second applicant] to leave their houses in exchange for paltry sums of money”, “he told [the second applicant] that he would achieve his aim at any price” and that “he would make her life impossible”.
10.  The article also made the following statements, none of which was found to be untrue by the courts:
 “one of G.C.'s 'attractive little houses' was built next to [the second applicant's] house” and “towered above it”; “in order to extend his assets G.C. destroyed [the second applicant's] shed”; “the fact that [G.C.] owns three apartments does not mean that he cannot get a fourth”.
The article also discussed [the second applicant's] lack of faith in the ability of the justice system to protect her against a much wealthier neighbour. A picture of the second applicant's and G.C.'s house was published. The article ended with G.C.'s opinion on the matter which he had given by phone and a summary of several documents he sent by fax which suggested that the second applicant had breached some of her obligations under the law.
11.  The court found that the repeated mention of G.C.'s former position as a minister increased the harm caused to him and found that there was no proof that he had used his former position in any illegal way.
12.  On appeal, the applicant newspaper argued that the statements made were value-judgments not susceptible of proof. It also complained that the court had taken a proactive approach in favour of G.C. in identifying of its own motion specific expressions as defamatory even though G.C. had not singled any out. Moreover, it pointed out that there had been no reaction to the fact that Mrs Z. Samson had confirmed in court her statements.
13.  On 14 January 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the judgment, rejecting a number of the newspaper's arguments and finding that “...the information in the article was a ground for an eventual proposal for the dismissal of [G.C.]”. The argument that the article reproduced the opinions of G.C.'s neighbours was rejected because the newspaper had published them. The court also assumed that two statements (namely, “he told [the second applicant] that he would achieve his aim at any price” and that “he would make her life impossible”) could only have been made by the second applicant.
14.  In a further appeal (on 30 January 2003 and 3 March 2003), the applicant newspaper submitted that several of the second applicant's neighbours had been evicted from their houses, that one of them was left without a place to live and that G.C. had become the owner of those houses. It also argued that, according to domestic law, G.C. had to prove the fact that the second applicant had made the two statements in question, whereas the court simply assumed that she had made them.
15.  On 20 March 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It rejected the newspaper's appeal as unfounded and as out of time, without giving any details as to the latter conclusion.